Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

Regardless of what is found out, any historical study of actual tunings from the early 20th century would be good. It could supplement the Broadwood manuals from the 19th century.

Come to think of it, would companies that existed then and are still extant, such as Steinway, have similar tuning manuals from those decades or tuning records? Surely they have a library. (And I would think that they would make some effort to retain documents such as tuning records for well-known performers' pianos.) Some of you here have studied at Steinway. Any contacts who could be contacted?

The sound is great. Sorry if I helped to sidetrack things. We just went off into the subject of how long Well tunings lasted, and before I knew it, I was posting links to the Marx brothers. I do hope you understand that no disrespect towards the tuning or the great sound that you get from the piano was intended--I love watching Chico have fun on the piano.(And we did get to see Ingrid Bergman along the way.)

Jake, not a problem! I have seen this happen on PW before...going off track...actually your sojourn still had to do with tuning, so no harm done.

You know, I don't think I have enough of an experience with older piano music to give an opinion one way or the other. I am an avid audiophile as well, and listening to old piano recordings with all the wow & flutter just grates on my musical senses. That's why I am a big fan of www.zenph.com They can take these old piano recordings, and allow us to hear them on a modern piano with 100% accuracy. I wish I could let you hear the Zenph Glen Gould and Art Tatum for the LX on my piano in this EBVT III, it's great, but it's a copyright issue to put them on the web, which I understand.

I do know that this EBVT III, to my ears, has a richer, more complex sound from the music, any music for that matter, than in ET. I am enjoying the change, and I as I am able to more finely tune the piano in EBVT III, and it stays in tune, it's even more enjoyable.

When Bill was here, and he was finished with his final pass, he sat down and played a few pieces and chords, I was in awe of the purity of the sound. Randy Potter said basically the same thing. It had a purity of tone, (not just from Bill's excellent unisons) that was undeniably great. Then as we played a variety of music from the Ampico and LX of which I was very familiar with, it became evident that I was hearing things I had never heard before. The harmonies, it's complexities, the richness in the bass, and the beautiful extended and airy treble section, were much more evident than I had heard in ET. Also, some of the music on the LX and Ampico, when it would arrive at a certain point, would always sound not quite right, but in EBVT, those same sections sound correct...interesting.

Thanks, GP, I am glad you are enjoying it and that it sounds right to you! You are the person I did it for and that is what matters to me. I recall that we joked about who would say what about it on here. So, when I said that I already knew what they would say and didn't care, I meant it. Either of us could publish the actual data for your tuning but I don't think we should for two reasons: it is specific for your piano and your piano alone and there would only be one comment about it: it is all wrong! The mathematical theories would prove it is wrong too! So, let 'em just wonder about it and keep 'em guessing.

As for proving that early 20th Century pianos were not tuned in ET, how about proving to me that they were. I haven't heard one yet that comes anywhere close to today's broadcast quality standards. To somehow believe that they were all a perfect ET but the unisons were bad, the octaves were bad and the hot lights made them go out during the recording is all grasping at straws to believe that the almighty ET is now, always was and always will be the only way anyone ever tuned a piano. It just is not true.

I had two interesting experiences yesterday, both first time customers. Upon finishing the first of these, the lady commented, "That is the very best this piano has ever sounded to me! I can say that without hesitation." That was after playing the piano in ALL the keys too and I do mean all, not just the mild ones. Really, if even one of my customers ever said anything like what some of the people on here have said (and I knew they would say because I know that they already have their minds made up about it), I might pursue things a little differently. They don't, however. They never do. They only shower me with compliments and they refer me to others.

The second was a nice Mason & Hamlin model A in a beautiful home. It turns out that the lady hosted gatherings of the symphony league which is the financial support group for our local symphony. She said, "I had this piano tuned only recently by someone else but the symphony conductor (with whom you have worked) was here and he said it did not sound right". I listened to what was there. Sure enough, it was reverse well. The C4-E4 M3 was the very fastest beating interval by far. The high treble octaves also varied incredibly in width from very narrow to very wide. It took two passes to tune each section of the piano even though the piano was at standard pitch. It would have taken two passes even if I had tuned it in ET.

Someone recently said they thought it had to do with using a C fork but I don't think it did at all. The A3 and A4 were right on pitch. What happens is the tuner begins tuning 4ths & 5ths from A3. The first interval tuned is A3-E4 and it is tuned too close to pure. That means A4 is too sharp. Then D4 is tuned too close to pure, so it is too flat. Then G3 is tuned from D4 too close to pure so it is too flat. Then C4 is tuned from G3 too close to pure, so C4 is too flat. C4 is too flat and E4 is too sharp, therefore, the C4-E4 M3 ends up being 20 or more cents wide (instead of the 14 cents it should be). There were no checks to use leading up to that error. At that point, the tuner could recognize that the interval sounds overly wide and do something about it but obviously they usually don't.

The path to reverse well continues: From C4 which is too flat, F3 is tuned as a too pure 5th, so F3 is too flat and the result is that the F3-A3 M3 is too wide, also far wider than 14 cents. If the M3/M6 check is used, both intervals may sound similar as they are supposed to but both of them are far too fast (just as it is seen in the last You Tube video I posted on the Reverse Well thread). F4 is tuned from F3, a "pure" octave, of course, just like the books all say it should be.

The road to ruin continues as A#3 is tuned from F3 as a too pure 4th. The A#3-D4 M3 is way too fast. Now D#4 is tuned as a too pure 4th from A#3. There is nothing to check that with, so G#3 is tuned as a 5th. The G#3-C4 M3 is too narrow and therefore beats too slowly. C#4 is tuned from G#3 and the A3-C#4 M3 beats too fast. F#3 is tuned from C#4 and the F#3-A#3 M3 beats very gently. B3 is tuned from F#3 and the G3-B3 M3 ends up 20 cents wide but the B3-D#4 M3 sounds as sweet as syrup.

That is how it typically happens and it is firmly believed to be ET. The Braide-White and all of the other 4ths & 5ths tuning books deliberately leave out any information whatsoever about what a well temperament is. If they say anything at all, they equate it to ET which is not true. So, tuner after tuner after tuner have done some version of the above for their entire career and believe it to be ET. The very notion of an unequal temperament is disturbing to their way of thinking, even though that is what they always do.

They won't try to learn another way to construct ET, the 4ths and 5ths sequence seems so logical to them, tuning contiguous major thirds does not. They have their way of doing it and prefer to mock and ridicule any other method. All of their clients have always heard the piano tuned this way and grown accustomed to the backwards and imbalanced harmony. So, it is little wonder to me why the way I tune sounds so beautiful when my clients hear it. The harmony, for the first time in their lives sounds as it should.

These clients have no built in sensitivity to the slightest deviation from ET as some tuners on here do. They have never heard a perfect ET, so they have no reference point for that. When they hear their music come alive in a way they never had before, it is truly an epiphany for them.

By the way, I very much enjoyed the theme from Schindler's List. The dark and disturbing sound of the minor key in the beginning is exactly what I expect to hear from this music. After all, that film is about genocide. Playing the same music in ET would take the edge off of the way it is really meant to sound. So, despite the claim that all modern music is composed with ET in mind, modern era composers still choose key signatures correctly, the same way they did in past centuries. It doesn't matter to me that the film soundtrack is in ET. What film critic hasn't pointed out what could have been done better in the very best of films? The way that music sounds in the EBVT III is the way it should sound and the way it should have been recorded.

The Mason & Hamlin lady will host another party this weekend where there will be professional musicians who will play her piano. Did I even once think that maybe I should tune it in ET because somebody might notice that is not ET and complain about it or say anything like what has been said on here? No, I didn't and I surely am not the least bit concerned about it.

As for proving that early 20th Century pianos were not tuned in ET, how about proving to me that they were.

.....

Come on now, Bill. It is up to you to prove your statements, not for me to disprove them.

But there always comes up the question of what is ET? If we take the most strict, mathematical definition of ET, then no piano ever has or ever will be tuned in ET. And if we take the broadest definition, then Bach tuned in ET because all key signatures were available. Even my practical definition of M3s and M6s being progressive is not very easy to achieve. I often cannot do so because of the condition of the pinblock and the rendering of the strings. There is much to be said for Jorgensen’s definition. If I remember correctly, it is what most tuners achieve when they attempt ET and is characterized by generally progressive RBIs.

So I would say that the intent of most tuners in the late 19th and early 20th century was ET, and that the result of most of these tunings is the definition of ET at that time. To apply a more strict or modern definition of ET to that time period and saying it is not ET is as unfair as applying a broader definition of ET to Bach’s time and saying that it was ET.

_________________________
Jeff DeutschlePart-Time TunerWho taught the first chicken how to peck?

Either of us could publish the actual data for your tuning but I don't think we should for two reasons: it is specific for your piano and your piano alone and there would only be one comment about it: it is all wrong! The mathematical theories would prove it is wrong too! So, let 'em just wonder about it and keep 'em guessing.

.....

If both the offsets and the iH of the piano are taken into account, general trends could be looked at. After all, that is how ETDs are able to tune pianos. Wouldn’t you want to know how mindless octaves effect an unequal temperament? Or do you just want to keep wondering and guessing? "Ignorance is Bliss"

_________________________
Jeff DeutschlePart-Time TunerWho taught the first chicken how to peck?

About revers well, you write..."That is how it typically happens and it is firmly believed to be ET."...

So, you are comparing EBVT to what?

About customers, you write:..."They have never heard a perfect ET, so they have no reference point for that. When they hear their music come alive in a way they never had before, it is truly an epiphany for them."...

Then, you could explain GP's enthusiasm.

And:..."The way that music sounds in the EBVT III is the way it should sound and the way it should have been recorded."...

So you could understand where pride leads to.

By reflecting upon your own words, you may also acknowledge ET's evolution and mixed SBI/RBI tuning sequencies, and teach tuning at its best.

You also allow yourself to write:..."The mathematical theories would prove it is wrong too! So, let 'em just wonder about it and keep 'em guessing."...

What kind of game is this, in GP's enthusiastic thread?

Modern ET mathematical theories would tell you that your tunings too can improve, from a Well/quasi-ET hybrid to a more euphonious form. Perhaps this does not sound "nice", but it may be simple enough.

When you get a chance: I'm curious about the zenph system. I've read through their site, and I see that they take into consideration 10 factors in the recording and generate a high-definition midi file. I'm puzzled, however:

Does the high def midi file change the pitch of the note to match that of the recording? In other words, if one has a Diskclavier that's tuned differently from the a recording one wants to reproduce on it, and one uses one of their midi files, will it correct the tuning so that it matches that of the original recording? (So, does your EBVT-tuned piano become an ET-tuned piano when playing one of their files?)

If it does "correct" the pitch, does it do so with pitchbends on each note? (Have you examined the midi files in a sequencer that lets you see the midi data stream?)

Going in the other direction, do you know if their system can record the original tuning? In other words, if a piano was tuned to a meantone temp, would their midi file record the pitches of the notes accurately. I imagine so, but their site never mentions pitching or tuning.

IF SO, THIS would be one good way to examine the history of early 20th century (popular music, I suppose) piano tuning, you see: if they can autorecord the pitch variations of each note, it would give us much. Not the upper partials, but the fundamentals. On the other hand, this would be expensive, assuming that their scholarly interests and time might be undermined by other considerations. Yet the pitch data might be the very easiest thing for them to read, and it would be a valuable contribution to musicology...

Actually, a method used to tune pianos in the early 20th century was tested to the limits of the equipment available in the mid 20th century and was found to produce ET. Dr. White included this in his book.

_________________________
Jeff DeutschlePart-Time TunerWho taught the first chicken how to peck?

One of the limitations about using a player piano (which we all discussed long before I ever went to GP's to tune his piano) is that the player system cannot "hear" the tuning. It will play the way the pianist recorded the piece regardless of how the piano is tuned. When a live pianist performs with a Well Temperament or mild Meantone (as in the case of Peter Serkin), the tone colors of the temperament cause the pianist to shape the music in a far more sensitive way than if the piano is tuned in ET.

I hope Patrick of Finland will show us some examples of this.

Thanks Bill, I will try to do just that. I plan to record my Yamaha G2 in my home tuned in both ET and EBVT III, using identical mic positions, closing out as much of the 'randomness' as possible, going for only two factors: 1) the tuning, 2) the interpretation.

I will play some classical music, just to shut out the argument of 'playing the good notes, hiding the rest'...

I like the analogy of grayscale/color, that is very close to the way I experience ET/EBVT III. Both can be beautiful, and there is something esthetical about the mathematically symmetrical tuning (ET), but there is no question that the color palette of EBVT III makes the (sensible) pianist play the instrument in a different way.

Just out of curiosity, I sent the recording of the improvisation i did earlier (http://www.wingren.fi/patrick/public/ebvt02_main.mp3) to three tuners I know. None of them are participating here, and thus their input is kind of fresh to this discussion. I mentioned that I've started to tune EBVT III, listed references to your site, and asked for feedback.

The first one (whom I've mentioned earlier) is a superb Steinway tech (trained at 57th st, NY). He has a very harmonic, aural approach to tuning. He just simply stated that he liked the tuning very much

The second one is a tuner from Helsinki that I learn to know some 20 years ago. He replied (translated from finnish):

"Hi, it sounds very nice - I can't grasp how you have been able to learn how to tune the piano like this by self-studies, and aurally too. You have a lot of talent, I already recognized that 20 years ago. Bill Bremmer's EBVT III works superbly, it sounds spacious and the spread gives a really nice feel. I have to explore that tuning and start practicing. I had a break in my tuning career for several years, but now again I'm getting interested in the profession that I left behind."

The third tuner is a concert tuner, former fazioli tech, who tunes for a lot of the big names here in Finland (Olli Mustonen, for example). He replied (again, translated from finnish):

"Hi, and thank's for your mail. I just listened to your playing and it sounded good. The intervals sounded tranquil, even at the outer ends of the piano. I still have to listen through my headphones, because my speakers don't give me enough lower bass. I have to explore this temperament myself."

Now, these are some pretty honest guys with as unbiased an input as you you might get. They all seemed very interested and eager to learn more about EBVT III. This is not to prove something right or wrong, I'm just giving a 'field report'. Anyway, them encouraging this temperament is a welcomed confirmation that there is something good going on here

Yes that was (as you know) my original plan, but now I'm really attracted to the idea of tuning the same instrument with two different tunings, just to rule out everything else. Even though I have Yamaha grands lined up at the conservatory, they sound a bit different and that affects the overal color of the tuning, too!

PS did you get snow this week? Northern Italy (Vicenza) is caothic, from what I've heard.

Hi Pat, no, no snow, but I heard of an earthquake in Madrid , they say at the radio - then I understood it was because the Madrid foot ball club lost when playing against Lyon...

The journalist does not respect nothing !

I would be "afraid" to make 2 different tunings on the same piano for comparison purposes.

That will give you much work and in the end you will not be sure if a drift occur, unless you can play, and tweak each tuning until it is good enough, all pianos react and vary (even between the morning and the evening !)

Yes if the YAm of the conservatory are too much different in age that could be a concern, but also a way for you to hear them played by differnt persons (?).

_________________________
It is critical that you call your Senators and Representatives and ask them to cosponsor S. 2587 and H.R. 5052. Getting your legislators to cosponsor these bills

Your improvisation recording is great. It's great to hear such clean unisons too. One can hear the multitude of colors in the tone and the richness that EBVT is able to produce. It's hard for me to imagine anyone not liking your recording/tuning. There is definitely something 'good' going on with EBVT III. I have heard it, Randy Potter heard it, my friends at my piano party heard it, and now your 3 tuner/tech friends have heard it.

As I mentioned before, I have nothing against ET, it is pleasing to the ear. EBVT III adds more dimensions to the sound, and brings out colors/harmonies that I don't hear in ET, yet it still remains beautiful, like in your recording. It's also very illuminating to hear EBVT III on a different piano.

Yesterday, I played some files on my Yamaha Disklaiver that I had been playing on the EBVT M&H RBB...it's a digital disklavier, no strings, and I have owned it for about 4 years now. It has Yamaha's tuning from their 9ft Concert Grand. The same file played on both pianos was like night and day. The Yamaha sounded flat, lifeless compared to the EBVT M&H RBB. I never noticed that much difference before, since I was tuning the M&H in ET. I kept looking at the Yamaha settings to see if I had something incorrect...lol. I much preferred the EBVT. As an experiment, I am going to take the digital out's of the Yamaha, and record a piece, then play the same piece on the RBB with EBVT III, then you can hear what I am talking about. It won't be like tuning the M&H in ET, then in EBVT III, but you will be able to hear what I am talking about.

I still have my older Rode NT5 mics, which I had not tried yet....last night, I connected them and recorded a few pieces. I am going to have clean up the tuning on the piano a bit, and will re-record them for a later posting. Different mic, slightly different result.

I would like to try a variation on my tuning to replicate what you did here, except I tune without an ETD.

It also seems that there have been lots of descriptions of temperaments using 4ths and 5ths mainly. However, I use faster beating intervals as I was taught this produces a more exacting result.

I am wondering if I could make some simple changes to the parameters I currently use aurally to produce this tuning and therefore have a 'live sample' I could evaluate. Is this possible?

Just in case Bill or anyone would tell me what I should do differently in order to make the proper adjustments, I will provide my current temperament sequence and summary of beat rates:

I tune the temperament octave F3-F4, starting with a C fork.

A flat from the C (major 3rd)

F3 from C4 (5th)

F4 from F3 (octave)

A4 from F3 (major 3rd)

C#4 from A4 (major 3rd)

F#3 from c#4 (5th)

A#4 from F#3 (major 3rd)

D4 from A#4 (major 3rd)

G3 from D4 (5th)

B4 from G3 (major 3rd)

D#4 from B4 (major 3rd)

E4 from C4 (major 3rd)

This sequence allows for good comparison between the consecutive 3rds. The F3-A4 major 3rd starts out at 7 beats per second and the consecutive 3rds progress at about .5 beats per second so that the C4-E4 major 3rd is 10.5 beats per second.

I hope this summary is simple enough because it ought to be just as simple to make the variations needed.

I use the even progression of major 3rds as the absolute priority and let the 4ths and 5ths try and sound as clean as they can, which is pretty close to pure for the 5ths.

I would like to try a variation on my tuning to replicate what you did here, except I tune without an ETD.

It also seems that there have been lots of descriptions of temperaments using 4ths and 5ths mainly. However, I use faster beating intervals as I was taught this produces a more exacting result.

I am wondering if I could make some simple changes to the parameters I currently use aurally to produce this tuning and therefore have a 'live sample' I could evaluate. Is this possible?

Just in case Bill or anyone would tell me what I should do differently in order to make the proper adjustments, I will provide my current temperament sequence and summary of beat rates:

I tune the temperament octave F3-F4, starting with a C fork.

A flat from the C (major 3rd)

F3 from C4 (5th)

F4 from F3 (octave)

A4 from F3 (major 3rd)

C#4 from A4 (major 3rd)

F#3 from c#4 (5th)

A#4 from F#3 (major 3rd)

D4 from A#4 (major 3rd)

G3 from D4 (5th)

B4 from G3 (major 3rd)

D#4 from B4 (major 3rd)

E4 from C4 (major 3rd)

This sequence allows for good comparison between the consecutive 3rds. The F3-A4 major 3rd starts out at 7 beats per second and the consecutive 3rds progress at about .5 beats per second so that the C4-E4 major 3rd is 10.5 beats per second.

I hope this summary is simple enough because it ought to be just as simple to make the variations needed.

I use the even progression of major 3rds as the absolute priority and let the 4ths and 5ths try and sound as clean as they can, which is pretty close to pure for the 5ths.

Does this temperament have a similar standard?

Thanks,

Nick

Nick, from the sound files you have posted, you could not improve the way you tune ET any more, in my opinion. An aural tuner these days that can truly perfect ET, especially using the sequence you posted is a rare occurrence. You have the natural ability that it takes to listen and adjust the intervals that it takes to tune a good ET. My recent work with other ET sequences has been an attempt to provide another scheme for those who have failed using traditional methods.

If you really want to find out what the EBVT III would sound like, all you have to do is follow the aural tuning directions on my website. Others have done it, Patrick from Finland and Rafael from Mexico city come to mind. I won't be offended if you do not like the results, just don't post ridicule and mockery as your answer.

You have seen that GP likes what I did for him. It has been quite a struggle to maintain that tuning, for sure. I can arrange a visit to you at your place of business and tune entirely aurally and show you how it is done, if you wish. If you are disappointed with the results, I will take it in stride because I know that you have become accustomed to the sound of ET.

I'm not expecting you to embrace the idea but if you do, so much the better. Even if you want to keep it as an alternative, that would be fine with me.

I think I might do both the studio side-by-side setup and the single piano. To me both could be most interesting, and as I'm curious by nature... well, let's see what happens when I get started.

Grandpianoman: Thank you for your reply, and for the great effort you have put into your recordings! It is really good to get aural examples of something that is of aural nature, instead of just discussing it all from a theoretical point of view.

Likewise, I appreciate Isaacs and Alfredos recording work, I have yet to listen carefully to that. This is the web at its best - being able to exchange ideas, challenge, and stimulate each other!

Nick: As you tune aurally and are used to FBI's, I think you would have no problem getting the hang of EBVT. Bill Bremmer's tuning sequence starts from an A fork, but as the F3-C4 is a pure 5th you'd just need to shuffle the order in the first part of the sequence a little bit.

1. Tune A4 to A-440 pitch source. 2. Tune A3 to A4, a 6:3 type octave. 3. Temper the F3-A3 M3 at 6 beats per second. 4. Tune the F3-C4 P5 beatless. 5. Tune the C4-F4 P4 beatless, creating a F3-F4, 4:2 type octave. 6. Temper the C4-E4 M3 at 6 beats per second. 7. Temper the G3-E4 M6 at 6 beats per second. 8. Temper the G3-B3 M3 at 6 beats per second. 9. Temper D4 from both G3 and A3 so the G3-D4 P5 and the A3-D4 P4 beat exactly the same. 10. Temper A#3 from F3, a widened P4, so the F3-A#3 P4 beats exactly the same as the G3-C4 P4. 11. Temper the A3-C#4 M3 so it beats exactly the same as the A#3-D4 M3. 12. Tune the F#3-C#4 P5 beatless. 13. Tune the G#3-C#4 P4 beatless. 14. Temper D#4 from both G#3 and A#3 so the G#3-D#4 P5 and A#3-D#4 P4 beat exactly the same. 15. EBVT II option: Sharpen E4 so the B3-E4 P4 now beats exactly the same as the A3-E4 P5.Skip this step to retain the original EBVT I. 16. EBVT III option: Sharpen F#3 so that the F#3-B4 P4 and the F#3-C#4 P5 beat exactly the same.

Note that if you stop at #14, you have EBVT I. To reach EBVT III, you go all the way through #16. Bill considers EBVT II (stopping at #15) obsolete these days, and advocates I or III.

EBVT III is milder and, to me, a very nice and colorful temperament that can be played regardless of genre or key signatures.

Yes that was (as you know) my original plan, but now I'm really attracted to the idea of tuning the same instrument with two different tunings, just to rule out everything else. Even though I have Yamaha grands lined up at the conservatory, they sound a bit different and that affects the overal color of the tuning, too!

PS did you get snow this week? Northern Italy (Vicenza) is caothic, from what I've heard.

Hello Patrick,

I loved the sound file you posted and appreciated the comments from other people. I would be extremely interested to hear that Schubert Impromptu #4 as you have learned to play it first in ET, then in the EBVT III on the same piano. Record it first in ET, save the file, then tune that same piano in the EBVT III and practice the piece again, playing it however differently you may interpret it in the EBVT III and record that. Your comments about both experiences will be well appreciated.

One day, I would like to hear it again in the 1/7 Comma Meantone as I first did in 1995. I wonder how Peter Serkin would interpret that piece as opposed to all the lifeless recordings of it I have heard on You Tube?

Ron Koval: I understand that GP sent you the data of his tuning as he also did to Tooner. What I expect to hear is that it does not match in any way any expectations. When I showed the data from my 1998 tuning at the PTG Convention in Providence, RI to Dr. Sanderson, his first reaction was, "I have never seen numbers that looked like those."

Yet, as GP works with "those numbers", you hear the results. You know that I am within a day trip to your location. I can visit you, tune a fine piano the way that I would and explain everything to you. I have actually wanted to do that for a long time. I only need the invitation. I am interested to find out if there is a way that the Verituner could cope with the way I tune the octaves.

I will post here for all to see, the way I tune a late 19th Century restored Steinway (9 foot but I am not sure if it was a model C or D) for a regular customer in the Milwaukee suburbs. The lady hosts regular events in her in-home concert hall (you would have to see it to believe it) with the finest area performing musicians. I always tune her piano this way. I often use this basic model as a preliminary tuning for many pianos as I did with GP's but I never use the data for the wound strings. I only tune them aurally. After roughing in the tuning using this data, I customize the tuning aurally and/or by direct interval meathod.

It would be interesting to know how closely this data matches with a Verituner generated program for any Steinway. You will notice that all of my figures are either whole of half cents. If I start with A3 on 0.0 (as I always do), I can get every subsequent pitch to be either a whole of half cent. My F3 is invariably a 1.0, no matter which piano it is. The F3-A3 M3 is supposed to beat a 6 beats per second and F3 at +1.0 cents against A3 at 0.0 seems to do that every time. F4 at the same +1.0 creates a perfect F3-F4 4:2 octave every time.

When I tune C4 pure to F3, the result is almost always 2.0. When I tune E4 to -2.0, it is always just right for the EBVT III but -2.5 is right for the original EBVT. F#3 at -2.0 is almost always right for the EBVT III but -2.5 or -3.0 is right for the original EBVT. So, you see, that the M&H RBB in the temperament octave is nearly identical to the Steinway, even though each is already known to have a radically different scale and far different amount of inharmonicity:

Remember that there is a partial selection shift from 4th partial in octave 3 to 2nd partial in octave 4. But you can easily see how all of these figures very closely straddle theoretical ET as they are all read in octave 5. The harmony is affected as intended by plus/minus deviations from theoretical ET but the basic pitch of each note is either exactly on or a very small increment from theoretical ET. That is intended and is by design. I can easily understand why Kamin seemed to like the Bass in the EBVT III postings because of how very closely each pitch came to theoretical ET, particularly in octave 2.

As I move upward from the F3-F4 octave, I expect to raise each value by 0.5 or 1.0 or maybe not at all to improve the way a 5th sounds. By the time I reach F5, I go entirely by what is called, Direct Interval. Some technicians apparently have not understood that concept. If I have my ETD set on F5 for example, reading on the first partial, if I play F3 as I have tuned it, I can find an exact reading that will make F5 be in tune with F3 as a perfect double octave. Just play F3 and stop the pattern and you would have that (regardless of temperament). But what I like to do at this point is to make an equal compromise between the double octave and the octave and 5th. So, if I stop the pattern as I pay F3 (as it is reading one F5), then I play A#3, I would expect to see the pattern roll sharp. I then find the point where the pattern rolls equally sharp for F3 and flat for A#3. I always try to find a whole or half cent value for that. If the amount seems to fall within that range, I go for the sharp side. (I would go for the flat side in the Bass). Micromanaging less than one half cent outside the temperament octave is of no benefit. If the temperament octave itself is arranged on whole or half cents, it makes all determinations much easier.

So, the data you see for either the Steinway or the Mason & Hamlin RBB in the outer octaves has been determined by the actual inharmonicity that the piano has. Double octaves compared to octave and 5ths from F5 to E6 and triple octaves compared to double octaves and 5ths from F6 to C8. The numerical data is what the piano itself produced. The same is true for the Bass. Yes, anyone could produce different data with a different temperament and a different idea about how to stretch the octaves and any such idea could be deemed to be valid. I am only revealing how I did it.

Anyone is welcome to come up with what they think is a better idea. Post your own ideas and their results if you care or dare to do so. I am content with my own ideas at least for the present but I have never stopped refining them. I know what works for me and my clients. Bernhard Stopper and Alfredo Capruso know what works for them. They have clearly defined what they do and everything they do is valid as far as I am concerned.

I'll be able to take a look at the numbers this week and get back to you - I've got a couple of Ds in my Verituner to compare - the 1912 one at the college is probably the closer match. It should be fun!

(I may just take you up on the visit down this way.... thanks for the offer!)

Here are a few more recordings made after my 4th tuning of the EBVT III figures Bill gave me.

Again, please forgive my out of tune unisons as the recordings progress from Clair de Lune, which was the 1st after I tuned, to the last one, Warsaw Concerto. I just wanted to sit back and enjoy, rather than jumping up after each recording to clean up those unisons.

I did a little experiment with mics as well. I had not used my older Rode NT5's before with the EBVT....the first several recordings here, I used them. With headphones, you can hear the difference, albeit slight. From what I have read in home-recording forums, the cardioid is preferred for acoustic recordings, but it's not written in stone. I liked both mics...your thoughts? On a few of the recordings, I was monitoring the levels and did not quite turn them down quick enough, so some clipping is there.

I am yet again in awe of Bill's work as I listen to these. As I become better and better at rendering this EBVT III to my piano, I am sure stability will improve, as well as the overall tuning. At this point, my treble is still not stable.

The Ralston pieces are a little schmaltzy, but the Warsaw Concerto is impressive, even with the shmaltz. Pezzone wrote his own material I believe...the Kosovo piece written reflecting that conflict. This music shows that EBVT III sounds good in any type/style. Enjoy!

**One thing I have noticed, for some reason, when I use the box.net player online, the sound is a bit distorted, as opposed to downloading the mp3 to my computer, then playing it from there...much better sound, not so strident in the upper harmonics, and a better dynamic range, especially in the bass area.**

It's been a great experience to meet Bill, have him tune my piano, and then enjoy the beatifull music. Thank you again Bill for your great work! You've opened up yet another door to my music/piano!

I am also glad to have been able to further his work on PianoWorld and share it with everyone here. After all, "music makes the world go 'round" as they say, and thanks to Frank, PianoWorld, and the Internet, we can all share our ideas so much easier.

Thanks Bill, and Patrick, for explaining in terms I understand how to go about this tuning. I glanced the instructions and it seems the simple adjustments I asked for are adequately explained, except that I don't know what a 6:3 octave is, but it does not seem that the understanding of it is crucial since it is at the beginning of the sequence, or is it? I'm guessing it's just a pretty normal octave.

As I understand it, Zenph takes the sound (information) from the original recordings, and converts it into a high-resolution file that is able to be played back on the SE system that Wayne Stahnke originally developed back in the 80's for Bosendorfer. There is an updated and improved SE system now, made by a gentlemen in England, using Mr. Stahnke's original designs, which is what Zenph is using for their recordings. They also released some of their work for the LX, the Gould Goldberg Variations and the Art Tatum music.

Their high-def midi file does not change the pitch...it only 'plays' the exact notes on the piano..so whatever tuning/pitch that piano has, that's what you hear. You never hear anything digital. So my piano in EBVT III or ET, is playing in the same key it was recorded in originally, but that's it. I am hearing 100% playback of the original recording, timing, tempo, pedaling, and expression....an amazing feat!

Zenph cannot record a tuning, nor can my LX system, which is based on the SE system, it's only for playback of notes.

I don't like the NT5's on the early recordings--they seem to compress both the amplitude and the freq range. Don't know if it's because of the mics or the board, or the mic position, but on these specific recordings using NT5's, there's a nice, warm saturation in the mids, but no range. Too much of a focus on the mids for me.

Jake, all my earlier recordings for the last few years, have been with the Zoom H4 and it's built-in preamp. I think that may be the reason for the compressed sound you are hearing. The Korg is in a different league, as well as it's built-in preamps. DSD or Direct Stream Digital 1-bit, 5.6 MHz recording was something only very high-end recording studios and the Hollywood soundstage/orchestras etc could afford. It's 2 times better than SACD. The price has come down considerably since then.

..."You will notice that all of my figures are either whole of half cents. If I start with A3 on 0.0 (as I always do), I can get every subsequent pitch to be either a whole of half cent. My F3 is invariably a 1.0, no matter which piano it is. The F3-A3 M3 is supposed to beat a 6 beats per second and F3 at +1.0 cents against A3 at 0.0 seems to do that every time. F4 at the same +1.0 creates a perfect F3-F4 4:2 octave every time."...

So, no iH problems.

..."When I tune C4 pure to F3, the result is almost always 2.0. When I tune E4 to -2.0, it is always just right for the EBVT III but -2.5 is right for the original EBVT. F#3 at -2.0 is almost always right for the EBVT III but -2.5 or -3.0 is right for the original EBVT. So, you see, that the M&H RBB in the temperament octave is nearly identical to the Steinway, even though each is already known to have a radically different scale and far different amount of inharmonicity:"...

One more clue about iH.

..."Remember that there is a partial selection shift from 4th partial in octave 3 to 2nd partial in octave 4. But you can easily see how all of these figures very closely straddle theoretical ET as they are all read in octave 5. The harmony is affected as intended by plus/minus deviations from theoretical ET but the basic pitch of each note is either exactly on or a very small increment from theoretical ET."...

I think Bill may be right.

..."I can easily understand why Kamin seemed to like the Bass in the EBVT III postings because of how very closely each pitch came to theoretical ET, particularly in octave 2."...

This may be correct, Kamin may say.

..."As I move upward from the F3-F4 octave, I expect to raise each value by 0.5 or 1.0 or maybe not at all to improve the way a 5th sounds. By the time I reach F5, I go entirely by what is called, Direct Interval. Some technicians apparently have not understood that concept. If I have my ETD set on F5 for example, reading on the first partial, if I play F3 as I have tuned it, I can find an exact reading that will make F5 be in tune with F3 as a perfect double octave. Just play F3 and stop the pattern and you would have that (regardless of temperament). But what I like to do at this point is to make an equal compromise between the double octave and the octave and 5th."...

Isn't this beats symmetries?

..."Micromanaging less than one half cent outside the temperament octave is of no benefit."...

This is where our approaches may depart: I'd tend to micromanaging any audible intervals progression, what no ETD can do.

..."If the temperament octave itself is arranged on whole or half cents, it makes all determinations much easier."...

Bill says "easier" and it is an interesting and relevant "key".

..."So, the data you see for either the Steinway or the Mason & Hamlin RBB in the outer octaves has been determined by the actual inharmonicity that the piano has."...

To me, it seems that in Bill's tuning, outer octaves are determined by beats simmetries, am I wrong?

..."Double octaves compared to octave and 5ths from F5 to E6"...

I do not konw, was I wrong?

..."and triple octaves compared to double octaves and 5ths from F6 to C8."

Yes, it is better to refer to octaves close to your temperament register (when you distinguish it), this can round things better.

All together, (O) Bill could put an end to his crusade against ET, by recognizing that EBVT tuning (by design) sounds like a fair, comfortable and good enough version of actual octaves stretching and beats simmetries, in the way modern ET theories can describe. Then, the many aleatory comments about colours and emotions could be avoided.

Say you tune a good modern ET today, wouldn't you find a fairly good "non equal" the day after? Doesn't the piano itself "micromanage" what you have tuned, so putting "colours" on top of your tunings? Will Bill have listened to the M&H RBB the next day?

Bill says that what I'm doing is valid. This is also what I think about Bill's tunings, but my point is looking at pianos issues clearly for what they are, along with our deepest insights joined together.

iH is providing much of the problems when you want to follow the 4:5 ratio rule all along the keyboard. (he 4beats to 5beats relation between M3ds) that is when the beats are created by partials that are located high in the spectra.

Unfortunately, as those RBI are very audible we have to manage them

Then you often finally have the choice to have the M3 progressive and the 5Ths less of the 5ths nice and the 3M with some variation in progression.

What I hear when listening to EBVT is a mild temperament in the medium range, that keep is shape but way less in the 5 th and 2nd octave, and is way more even in the high treble and low bass.

A consecutive 17 th , and 12 th scale would show it.I wonder if a more strict respect of the temperament would not provide more the wanted effect.

In the basses indeed many intervals are re conciliated, but still I hear some tonalities more large (C, and others small, as F#) than others (as this is the intention I suppose this is normal).

In any case what I recognize in terms of global resonance (raised harmony) can be at last partly given to the reaction given between the 4th, the 12th the double and the sixth as to my ears it tend to "lock" at a resonant spot at each time)

There is some space within that good spot despite the precision it can offer.

Talking about the partial selectioned and used by the tuning softwares or goodies most of them compute you a justness based on the smoothing of the 3d (12 th) the second (octave) or the 4ths (double octave) partial, trying to derive a fundamental frequencies by Ih computation, there is much space for mistakes, even if they can help, they tend to change the way you are listening, and then you'll have a neat 12th progression then something that is derived from that progression. I believe the cause of the lack of musicality in those tunings is due to that, no precise intention, just guesses.

Indeed in the hand of a good tuner they will eventually help him, eventually show him the piano drift during tuning, (and provide a good justness model if they can take in account more than one partial at the same time) but I would consider all those EDT as being less precise than what our ears can do ; not a question of 10ths of cts or ear discrimination, but beat count.

They can be used in direct tuning, eventually, but still they dont listen as goos as you !

I, for one wish to hear that Schubert 4th impromptu,whenever possible.